My apologies Roger - you're absolutely right, I misread PPL as PEL. I realised this shortly after posting my last, but didn't have access to a PC until now. Thanks for clearing this up, and my apologies to anyone I unintentionally confused with this.

Which begs the question - why *were* you raising the licensing laws in connection with this, when you hadn't previously mentioned anything that was related to the licensing laws? Non-sequitur...?

At the risk of continuing our off-piste expedition, Hamish Birchall's quote relates to whether he's considered part of the band or part of the premises management. The Act has the effect of making Hamish Birchall an agent of the premises rather than an agent of the band - which is pretty much what you'd expect really, given that he starts by saying "When I am contacted by the charity that sets up hospital and nursing home performances...". Checking the Act, Birchall isn't personally liable to prosecution under the act, because he isn't the person "who carries on a business which involves the use of the premises for the licensable activities to which the application relates" (Section 16 para 1a) - that would be either the charity or the hospital/home - but he could reasonably be expected to check that there was a license in place before organising an event. So if there was no license and the police arrived, the charity or hospital/home (whoever was done for it) would have pretty good grounds for saying Birchall hadn't exercised due diligence and suing him on that basis. Yes, Birchall has a bit more work to do - but he isn't liable to prosecution under the Act, so claims that he is are incorrect.

Also note that the section Birchall quotes states that if he

(a) chooses the music to be performed or played,
(b) determines the manner in which he performs or plays it,
(c) provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance or playing of the music.

then he is not concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment. In other words, a musician or bandleader is *not* liable under the Act, contrary to his assertion.

Graham.

PS. For the curious, see the Act itself. Relevant sections are section 16 and section 200 schedule 1 part 1.